Accidental Blogger

Cassandra George

October 12, 2006

A study by scientists published in the medical journal, Lancet reports that Iraqi civilian deaths have soared past all previous estimates. The report puts the number of deaths after the US led invasion at 655,000, which is roughly 58 times higher than the unofficial claim.

"We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation," said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States.

That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said.

George W. Bush was asked about this report at Wednesday’s press conference.

U.S. President George W. Bush dismissed the report as not credible. "The methodology is pretty well discredited," he said at a White House news conference.

But Bush added: "I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me, and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence."

So whom are we to believe – the scientists or our president whose record on truth telling and rosy predictions about Iraq have been rather sketchy until now?

" ..The job is getting done. Iraq is more free every day. The citizens are beginning — the lives of the citizens are improving every day. And one thing is for certain; there won’t be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms. The tyrant will no longer come back to threaten the Iraqi people. These people will be able to live in — these Iraqi citizens will not only be able to live in a free society, they’ll be able to live in a society that is free from one of the most brutal dictators in the world’s history.

George W. Bush to Reporters in Mexico
January 12, 2004

No mass graves?

"Asked for directions to one newly found pile of bodies in Baghdad, Haider Latif Ugaili, an 18-year-old black-market gasoline vendor, replied: That one’s over there. But we found three bodies here this morning.

Daylight Tuesday brought the discovery of at least 86 shot or strangled men across the city, most of them with hands tied and many of them tortured, according to police. They included 27 corpses in one of the first mass graves to be found in the capital since the U.S. invasion three years ago." .. . The Washington Post, March 16, 2006

No torture?

"The bodies of 40 men have been found dumped in the streets of Baghdad over the past 24 hours, Iraqi police said today.

The men – who all appeared to be victims of sectarian death squads – showed signs of having been tortured. They had been shot and had their hands and feet were bound." . . . . . . . Guardian Unlimited, September 28, 2006

No rape?

Hidden victims of a brutal conflict: Iraq’s women

Abduction, rape and murder are the punishments for any woman who dares to hold a professional job. A month-long investigation by The Observer reveals the terrible reality of life after Saddam… Guardian Unlimited, October 8, 2006

Whoops! That makes it 0 for 3 in sporting terms – not the horse to back, if you are the betting type. Yet, Bush is again asking American voters to support his losing team, because horror of horrors, the Democrats might raise our taxes !
Is Religion On An Equal Footing With Race?

October 11, 2006

So asks Razib of Gene Expression. (Razib has recently become my go to guy for shedding light on religious, cultural and anthropological esoterica. He knows "everything"! But he hadn’t figured out that I am a woman.)

Like Razib, I say an emphatic "no." Race is an immutable characteristic you are born with over which you have no control. Religion is a philosophy you choose to believe. I do recognize that children have no choice over the indoctrination within observant families and communities that begins soon after birth, often making religion a second nature – a deeply ingrained belief that is hard to shake off even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, it is something that can be changed and often does, for many among us. Atheists grow up in believing families, Catholics become Baptists, Hindus embrace Islam. Blacks, whites or browns on the other hand, cannot choose to skip over to another race.

Razib cites a moderate Muslim commentator who made the following point on NPR:

"… there is an understanding that there will not be any acceptable public mockery of black Americans, e.g., the use of the ,"N-word." The commenter further implies that Muslims are now viewed as an "ethnic group" in America and as such should be above harsh criticism even if some of their conduct is less than exemplary.

Nobody should mock anybody as far as I am concerned – for their race, physical handicaps, gender or beliefs. But how about an honest debate? There can be no debate about changing our physical attributes -they are what they are, plastic surgery notwithstanding. But surely there is room for us to question each other’s philosophies. Especially when that philosophy guides many among us in deciding how they conduct themselves in private and more importantly, in public.

Whenever an atrocity is perpetrated in the name of religion, the faithful are at pains to explain that true religious faith (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, take your pick) does not prescribe or condone the outrage in question. As a non-believer, I have become tired of listening to this litany of cop outs. Believe me, I don’t care what true religion says. If anyone kills, maims, injures, oppresses or otherwise does harm in the name of a religion, that religion is defined by that action for all practical purposes. Period. Unless, the co-religionists come out in force to condemn, control and punish the perverters of the faith instead of pointing fingers and finding scapegoats to explain away their actions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to pore over ancient tomes to determine the original pure intent of their faith. Organized religion for me, is a human enterprise, created by humans to define (usually as better than others) and organize themselves in what they see as a chaotic world. It should remain a private activity for personal edification. In the light of rapidly gathering scientific knowledge and the resulting secular ethics, a vast majority of the world population still needs religion as a moral compass to guide them through life. Others such as myself, don’t need that crutch and are unapologetic about it.

I have no wish to engage in theological debates with believers. I have figured out my life and they, theirs. As long as all of us abide by the laws of the land, we need not clash in any public arena. I have never gone into a church, mosque or a temple to demand that they teach atheism, agnosticism or skepticism in their institutions. Yet I have to contend with religious bigots insisting that science be taught according to the Bible, Quran or the Vedas. I have never gone out of my way to argue with or insult those whose beliefs equal wilful fantasy in my own eyes. Yet I am lectured to by well meaning (and sometimes not so benign) do gooders who want to aggressively save my elusive soul. In a civil society, it is reasonable for me to expect that the freedom to believe or not believe is a choice we must have and a believer’s dogmatic fist needs to stay clear of my secular nose.

I have on several occasions, criticised the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists of different stripes. My diatribes have for the most part targeted Hindus and Christians. I have until now not spoken out publicly against the unreasonableness of Islamic bigotry precisely for the reasons that the commentator cited in Razib’s post expects us to do – that Muslims have been treated so badly by Israel and the west, that they should remain above criticism for reasons of political correctness. I have been an unrelenting critic of the Bush administration and the west’s generally racist attitude towards the Muslims. In that group I would also include Hindu and Jewish nationalists. However, all that should not provide cover for the mindless and harmful obscurantism within the Islamic community either. I decided to break my silence with "Jack Straw and the veil" and weigh in with some further thoughts. I left the following comment on Razib’s post which I am copying here with minor modifications:

"It is interesting that you bring up the issue of conflation of race and religion. For a religion such as Hinduism which has been historically confined to a geographic location in or around the Indian subcontinent, the assumption about the race of a Hindu is for the most part (if you leave aside the Hare Krishnas) accurate. I find it a bit confounding when similar assumptions are made about Judaism and Islam. Yet it is done frequently, sometimes by the adherents themselves.

I recently read Rebecca Goldstein’s book, Betraying Spinoza. The fate of the Marranos in Spain and Portugal or the suspected crypto-Jews among them was very telling. The Iberian Christians continued to believe that the Jewish conversos remained "Jews at heart" even when they practised outward Christianity. Was this then a matter of belief or race? A case of "once a Jew, always a Jew," – something akin to race that you cannot "choose" to change? In the case of Judaism I have always suspected that Christians and Muslims find the Jews to be an enigma because as derivative faiths, they suffer from an inferiority complex before the adherents of the "original" wisdom. And also they cannot fathom why faced with "the ultimate, latter day" truth (and vicious persecution) the Jews elected to cling to their beliefs. The conclusion therefore is "They must know a secret that we do not know." The Indian / Pakistani poet, Iqbal asked a similar question about Hindus in a lengthy and plaintive verse addressed to Allah. Hindus too chose to remain Hindus in the face of punitive taxes and other physical and psychological threats during 700 years of Islamic rule.

Regarding the ethnic identity of Muslims acquiring a monochromatic hue in the west, the Muslims are responsible for that to a large extent. While growing up in India, the Muslims I knew, unselfconsciously identified themselves as Indians first, Muslims next. The cultural identification with India was evident in their dress, eating habits and language. I have not lived in India for a long time. I do not know what the prevailing mood is among Indian Muslims regarding identity in the wake of increasing Islamic fundamentalism all over the world. I suspect that for educated, middle class Indian Muslims things haven’t changed all that much.

However, among the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that I know in the US, I have seen a sea change of behavior and expressions of religious identity, in the last fifteen years or so. Many of the women who had sported short hair, worn stylish western and Asian clothing when I first met them, have taken to wearing long sleeved coats over their outfits, covering their heads etc. Their language is much more self consciously sprinkled with Arabic and Persian than it was before. Their conversations include many references to "good Muslims." The social circle is divided into two camps deliberately kept apart – non-Muslims and Muslims (which include a large number of Arab friends). The Arabization of these non- Arab Muslim friends has occured before my eyes over the years. Mind you, I am speaking only of women who were not particularly religious, at least not overtly, when I first made their acquaintance. The far eastern nations of Indonesia and Malaysia too have undergone similar Arabization in recent years.

A few decades ago, it was very common for Indonesian Muslims to enact the Ramayan and Mahabharat in folk drama. Indonesian Muslims also had Sanskrit first names in conjunction with an Arabic last one. I don’t know if they still do. Religion therefore used to be distinct from local culture. While "Arabia" was the holy land, one’s own culture was home grown. I feel that some imaginary "Arabic culture" has now supplanted local customs and "Arabia" is now also the the fountainhead of "culture" in the minds of Muslims the world over. It is difficult then to criticize non-Muslims when they look at "all" Muslims and think Arab / middle eastern.

I will not go into the personal observations and anecdotes about the "revisionism" of my Pakistani and Bangladeshi friends. But let me relate something that happened openly and was reported in the Houston Chronicle five years ago. On September 10, 2001, Salman Rushdie was in Houston for a reading of his latest book. The Islamic Society of Greater Houston held a large rally of protest in front of the downtown hotel where Rushdie was reading. Among the signs they held, many read, "Death to Rushdie." Next day, after the planes flew into the World Trade Center, the very same people were all over Houston TV protesting that "Islam is a religion of peace!" Very ironic.

I have criticised Hindu, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists on my blog quite frequently – the first two, very often. However, I did not address the matter of Muslim fundamentalism and religious oppression until I chose to write about the "veil." I must confess that the restraint was partly due to a vague feeling of piling on an already beleagured community. George Bush’s own religious fervor in defining foreign policy made criticising Islam a delicate subject – I felt that doing so would put me in the same camp as the "crusading" right wingers. However, I now feel that all right thinking, rational folks need to start calling a spade a "bloody shovel" when it comes to religion’s infringement on basic decency and human rights. We should not be hampered by concerns of hurting the feelings of those who given half a chance, will hurt not just my feelings but my flesh and bones.

As for Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations’ discrimination against non-Muslims being distinct from racial apartheid because they base the discriminatory public policies on the generous philosophy, "one can always choose to be a Muslim," I consider that a modern day kinder, gentler equivalent of conversion by the sword. It is spurious logic. If I restrict your movements, choice of dress, education, employment and freedom of worship, scream from loudspeakers and national media about the despicable nature of your existence as an infidel, all the while claiming your "freedom" to become a Muslim, it is a laughable attempt at offering "choice." Somewhat on the same level of disingenuousness as the oft ridiculed civic ordinance which claims equal justice under the law in prosecuting the rich AND the poor for sleeping under a bridge! The hypocrisy is palpable."

A note of caution: To those readers who might read into this post an open invitation to trash Muslims, please don’t bother. I have only addressed the Muslim question here because that is what Razib’s article asked. My complaint is against ALL bigots and obscurantists. I have nothing against those for whom religion is a joyful cultural observance or a personal spiritual quest for peace.
A “Swift” Retaliation

October 10, 2006

The vindictive Bush administration has done it again. Its poll numbers are sinking, Iraq and Afghanistan policies are in tatters, the GOP is neck deep in sordid scandals involving money and sex. Instead of cleaning up the mess they have created with their brutish and mulish ways, Bush and his henchmen are intent on punishing anyone they perceive as the enemy of their corrupt philosophy. That includes those who get in the way of Bush-Cheney -Rove’s attempts at grabbing extra-constitutional powers. Let’s go straight to the story.

"The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration’s military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire in March or April under the military’s "up or out" promotion system. Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander.

He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden’s driver.

"It was a pleasure to serve," Swift told the newspaper. He added he would have defended Hamdan even if he had known it would cut short his Navy career.

"All I ever wanted was to make a difference — and in that sense I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams," Swift said.

The Pentagon had no comment Sunday.

A graduate of the University of Seattle School of Law, Swift plans to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian.

The 36-year-old Hamdan was captured along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion that was a response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Hamdan has acknowledged that bin Laden paid him $200 a month as his driver on a Kandahar farm, but he says he never joined al-Qaida or engaged in military fighting.

Hamdan turned to civilian courts to challenge the constitutionality of his war-crimes trial, a case that eventually led the Supreme Court to rule that President Bush had outstripped his authority when he created ad hoc military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Swift’s supervisor said he served with distinction.

"Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, the Pentagon’s chief defense counsel for Military Commissions. He added it was "quite a coincidence" that Swift was passed over for a promotion "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."

In the opinion of Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Swift was ”a no-brainer for promotion,” given his devotion to the Navy, the law and his client.

But, he said, Swift is part of a long line of Navy defense lawyers ”of tremendous distinction” who were were not made full commander and "had their careers terminated prematurely.”

”He brought real credit to the Navy,” said Fidell. "It’s too bad that it’s unrequited love.”

No good deed shall go unpunished and no honest man spared the humiliation, so long as this lawless administration is in power.
A Veiled Threat

October 9, 2006

Compared to the average person grown up in the west, it was perfectly commonplace for me in India to see men and women dressed in myriad different styles of attires and headgears. In that colorful parade of people donning widely varying garments of traditional and western fashion, there were also veiled women, most of them Muslims.

Although none of my Indian Muslim friends or acquaintances wore the veil or dressed in any way different from non-Muslims, in parts of old Delhi and other cities with sizeable Muslim populations, it was not uncommon to see women in full veils and burqas (or niqabs). I cannot remember any significant social contact with veiled women but they were a common enough sight in city buses, trains, in bazaars and on the streets. Despite my exposure to the veil and the burqa from early childhood, I must confess that I still feel vaguely uncomfortable in their presence. Not the head scarf, not turbans, not long dresses covering the body from neck to ankle – but a face hidden behind a veil, which lets you see just a pair of eyes (even those are sometimes hidden behind twin windows of netted fabric) has a disconcerting effect on me. There is a palpable feeling of being at a disadvantage when the other person can scrutinize your face but you can’t see hers.

British foreign minister, Jack Straw recently created a firestorm by stating that he is made uncomfortable in the presence of veiled Muslim women constituents who come to meet with him in his office. He didn’t say that the women are breaking any law or that the veiled women are more likely to be radicals or terrorists. He expressed his opinion that "the all-concealing veil is a barrier to human interaction." Predictably Straw is being assailed by Muslims and some non-Muslims, including cabinet colleagues for his comment which is being interpreted as prejudiced and insensitive.

The Muslim community is at a crossroads vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Numerous controversies have erupted in recent years resulting from real and perceived insults and threats to Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims. I was ambivalent about the furor over the Danish cartoons because I suspected mischief. I was unimpressed by the Pope’s comment about Islam and subsequent apology because I detected hypocrisy. But I am with Jack Straw on the veil. The unease with the veil goes beyond "learned" cultural differences as is evident from my experience and feelings. It goes to the heart of human to human interaction. Razib of the Science Blog, Gene Expression has a valid explanation for why Straw may have been expressing his honest feelings and not indulging in political manipulation of a sensitive issue. Razib says and I agree that:

"Occasionally people will laugh at the fact that "you can’t see them, but they can see you," but I think this highlights a basic psychological reality: we are highly dependent on facial expression in interacting with each other. Our species has a gestalt ability to recognize and perceive emotion in faces. This is innate, it isn’t learned, we’re born with it. I offer that the hijab, which only covers the head, or a turban, or a some other such distinctive garment, are not as disturbing because the face is still visible. Fundamentally, while some types of clothing are markers of distinction and difference, the veil is one which forces a separation between two human beings on a very deep level. The interaction between a veiled and unveiled individual is fundamentally asymmetrical as one individual can still absorb all the critical facial information while the other goes "blind." When veiled women lived mostly in seclusion in pre-modern times this was not a great consideration, as they went unveiled amongst themselves, but today some veiled women assert the right to a public life, in the professions, and what not. And so of course new problems emerge. Can you imagine the sort of debate that would erupt if a veiled woman asserted the right to enter a poker tournament? "

Many Muslim women in Britain are outraged by Straw’s statement about the veil and have taken their protest to the streets. One of the more telling comments from an outraged woman was:

"The Muslim community does not need lessons in dress from Jack Straw, any more than it needs lessons in parenting from John Reid," said Nazreen Nawaz, a spokeswoman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical group that says it seeks pan-Islamic rule through peaceful means."

Ms Nawaz wants to spread pan-Islamism in which I presume she would expect women to adopt the veil perhaps even against their wishes. But Mr. Straw’s view that women should discard the practice is heinous? Does Ms Nawaz even see the irony of her words and her philosophy?

It is important to note that Straw has defended the practice of Muslim women to wear the head scarf. His problem is with the veil. He explains, — "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult". Straw was asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses which could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

What’s wrong with Straw’s statement? Is it always inappropriate for an "outsider" to criticize religious and cultural practices of others in deference to their sensibilities? What about female circumcision? Female feticide? Dowry? The now defunct but cruel practices of feet binding in China and widow burning in India came to an end partly due to the efforts of "foreigners." Brave souls within the community were emboldened to fight those entrenched and horrendous traditions due to the moral support from "outside" the community. It is a well known fact that when a religious community turns inwards and to extreme orthodoxy, its members are more afraid of their own co-religionists than they are of any outsider. Inhuman, degrading and medieval practices and human rights violations in the name of religion must then be questioned by "others" because insiders often will not speak out. Sometimes it takes an "outsider" to point out the B.S. and the inconsistency of one’s entrenched beliefs.

Here is a link to the description of how different European nations deal with the veil and the Muslim dress code.
Assassinated in Moscow (Joe)

October 8, 2006

Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist famous for her reporting of human rights abuses in Chechnya, was murdered yesterday in her apartment building in Moscow. Mikhail Gorbachev is complaining–loudly–and Vladimir Putin is being blamed. Sebastian Alison, writing for Bloomberg, notes:

The murder is the third killing in weeks. Enver Ziganshin, the chief engineer of BP Plc’s Russian gas unit, OAO Rusia Petroleum, was shot and killed in Irkutsk on Sept. 30. Russian central banker Andrei Kozlov, who led a fight against corruption in the nation’s banking industry, was assassinated on Sept. 14.

Violence against journalists in Russia is “frequent and impunity prevails,” Paris-based Reporters Without Borders concluded in its annual survey this year.

Paul Klebnikov, the U.S.-born editor of Forbes Magazine in Russia, was shot dead in Moscow in July 2004. Klebnikov was at the time the 11th journalist to be murdered in a contract-style killing since Putin took office in 2000. No one has been brought to justice in any of the killings, according to the New York- based Committee to Protect Journalists.

David Holley in the LA Times reports:

Yaroshevsky [deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper where she worked] said Politkovskaya had been working on an article about torture in Chechnya that was due to run in Monday’s paper.

"As far as I know she was planning to write about Kadyrov people who torture people in order to get confessions from them for anti-government activities," Yaroshevsky said. "I don’t know whether she managed to complete her story. But if she did, or there are some drafts left, we will certainly publish it. We know that she had testimonies from those who were tortured, and photos of them."

Everybody is pointing fingers at everybody else. I certainly don’t know who’s directly to blame, but I do know that this is sad news for journalism, sad news for Russia, sad news for Ichkeria and for all of Chechnya; it’s sad news for us all. I would ask that if you read only one thing about Anna Politkovskaya, you read Yevgeny Kiselyov’s op-ed in the Moscow Times which explains exactly why she was so important:

For me, Politkovskaya’s bravery, single-mindedness and readiness to get the story no matter what the risks involved, put her up there with Veronica Guerin of The Irish Times, who was killed by Dublin drug dealers in 1996 as revenge for her investigative articles.

Many will remember Joel Schumacher’s film about her story, with Guerin played by Cate Blanchett. The film was slammed by many critics for portraying the deceased journalist as highly ambitious and interested only in glory and celebrity. In fact, Guerin was completely different — modest and concerned only with telling her readers the truth. I once met Veronica and can vouch for this personally.

Politkovskaya was from the same mold. If anything, she was even less interested in money. She was more ascetic, more of a human rights activist. She had one main theme: human rights violations in Chechnya. She not only wrote about this, but tried to help people whose rights had been violated, to get them out of torture chambers and back on their feet. This was where the royalties from her articles and books went.

[…]

[S]he spent almost every day investigating human rights violations and other crimes committed by federal forces and their Chechen allies during a war that, according to opinion polls, most Russians had not supported for years. It is a war that swept the man who started its latest phase into the Kremlin. President Vladimir Putin regards criticism of the war as a personal affront.

[…]

Politkovskaya long ago disappeared from our television screens. The media, and television in particular, is increasingly becoming a business, and business is often incompatible with critical opinions from journalists who cast doubt on statements made by government officials. This is happening everywhere, but unfortunately, as often happens, it becomes monstrous, grotesque and rampant in Russia. There is less and less space for journalism, particularly of the investigative kind.

Some journalists had apparently started a muttering campaign against Politkovskaya, asking why she kept hammering away about Chechnya and nothing else. Nothing can be done, they said. Everyone is fed up with Chechnya, people don’t want to hear about it and readers are deserting her newspaper. But she stuck to her guns. In the end she paid with her life.

As the boss of a respected Moscow newspaper said cynically, "She kept on asking for it, and she fell."

[…]

I feel embarrassed for many of my colleagues. Alexander Mamontov, the editor of Russia’s oldest and still-respected newspaper, Izvestia, which recently has recently taken an increasingly pro-government line, said that Politkovskaya’s professional activities "had not the slightest thing to do with what happened to her." This was just hours after the murder, when no one knew any details of the crime. I wonder what he knew that enabled him to make such a categorical statement.

[…]

Much will also be said now about how the murder of a journalist should be seen as no less serious a crime than the murder of a politician; that journalism is a public profession and, as such, journalists should be untouchable. I agree completely. But the professional immunity of journalists must be guaranteed before their physical safety.

This immunity does not exist in Russia today, because the state has no respect for journalists’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Everything springs from this. And for this, the authorities are definitely to blame.

It’s important to look around at the rest of the world when we call the United States government a banana republic operating on the principle of the führerprinzip, and recognize how much worse it could be. I don’t mean that in the "see, it’s not so bad here" kind of way, but rather, "let’s stop this before we get to that point."
Nobel, Nobel!

October 7, 2006
Unlike in my youth, when I used to be a trivia fiend (sports, movies, current affairs), the annual Nobel prize awards, like the Oscars, are of only fleeting interest to me now. I read the news of the prestigious prize eagerly enough, try to make connections between the recipients and their works and then soon forget about them.

The 2006 Nobel Prizes in the sciences were announced recently – in physics, chemistry and medicine. It was a rare American sweep – all the recipients are US scientists, three of the five from California universities. Two noteworthy things about this year’s winners are that one of the physics winners works for NASA (a first for the space agency) and the prize in chemistry went to a man whose father too is a Nobelist. Father and son are also affiliated with the same university.

This year’s chemistry prize winner Roger Kornberg is the son of Arthur Kornberg (both of Stanford University) who won the 1959 Nobel prize for medicine. This is not the first time that a father-son duo has won the Nobel. The very first time it happened, was in 1915 when X-ray crystallographers William Bragg and his son Lawrence, won the physics prize together. Lawrence Bragg was twenty five at the time and to this day, holds the record for being the youngest Nobelist ever. I knew about the Braggs. But upon visiting the Nobel Foundation’s website, I was surprised to find out that there were a few more Nobels that went to sons of famous scientists. I was aware of two of the fathers (Niels Bohr and J.J. Thomson) but not of their sons. The list of six pairs of father-son winners is as follows:
- J. J. and George Thomson (J. J: physics, 1906. George: physics, 1937)
- William and Lawrence Bragg (physics, 1915)
- Niels and Aage Bohr (Niels: physics, 1922. Aage: physics, 1975)
- Manne and Kai Siegbahn (Manne: physics, 1924. Kai: physics, 1981)
- Hans von Euler -Chelpin and Ulf von Euler (Hans: chemistry, 1929. Ulf: medicine, 1970)
- Arthur and Roger D. Kornberg (Arthur: medicine, 1959. Roger: chemistry, 2006)
But of course the most famous of all Nobel families were the Curies – with four members winning the coveted honor. They figure in the following permutations:
- Mother – Daughter : Marie Curie and Irene Joliot Curie ( mother Marie was a two time winner – 1903 for physics and 1911 in chemistry. Irene won for chemistry in 1935)
- Father – Daughter: Pierre Curie and Irene Joliot Curie (Pierre for physics in 1903)
- Husband-Wife: Pierre and Marie Curie (both for physics in 1903) and Irene and Frederic Joliot (chemistry in 1935)
Wonder what dinner time conversation was like at the Curie household. Only one pair of siblings have won so far.
- Brothers Jan and Nikolaas Tinbergen (Jan for economics, 1969. Nikolaas for medicine in 1973)
It is interesting that the Nobel gene seems to have passed from parents to progeny overwhelmingly in the fields of science. There is no example of family Nobels in the literary field.

For more Nobel related facts and factoids please visit the foundation’s official website. For a recent interview with the Kornberg father and son, see here. (link provided by BongoP’o’ndit)

One word of caution. The American sweep of this year’s science Nobel prizes is a cause for celebration in the US scientific community. But we must remain vigilant in preserving the integrity of American science education against the aggressive, pernicious and corrupting influences of political and religious propaganda.
He’s Got It Off His Chest

October 6, 2006

Nike is cashing in on the most famous moment of 2006 World Cup Soccer. A new ad shows the head butted Materazzi returning to the fray – braced for Zinedine Zidane or any thing else that might await him on the soccer field. This time Materazzi sports a shaven head – a new style of choice or a sardonic tribute to Zizou? Watch the video here.

(via Confused)
Goodman and Good Sense # 3

October 6, 2006

Ellen Goodman, like me, was initially reluctant to comment on Mark Foley’s foibles and the inevitable political fallout from the disturbing and sordid "chicken hawk" saga.

Just as I had hoped that the upcoming elections would be a stinging rejection of Bush and the Republican Party’s failed policies of peace and prosperity at home and abroad, Goodman too wanted the disaster in Iraq to be the deciding factor for voters. However, as she explains and I concur, moral issues that relate to areas "above our necks" are not as sexy (pun intended) as those that are "below our belts." If Foley’s pathetic obsession with fair faced adolescent boys and the Republican leadership’s equally obsessive attempts at sweeping that inconvenient fact into the "closet" are what will undo the arrogant, corrupt and dangerous GOP control of Congress, so be it, says Goodman. As is usually the case with Goodman, one of my favorite columnists, her commentary echoes my own thoughts on this matter almost word for word.

Ellen Goodman: A Lousy Way to Win Back Congress

If I had my druthers, this election would have turned on the war in Iraq. I hoped that when the voters finally got it, “it’’ would have been the disaster that’s turned this war zone into a recruiting ground for terrorists.

Instead we have the self-described party of family values caught enabling or at least ignoring a sick puppy of a congressman, Mark Foley, who was sex-talking electronically to teenage pages. Instead we have Speaker Dennis Hastert dismissing such an exchange as merely “over-friendly’’ and White House press secretary Tony Snow describing the messages as “naughty.’’ We even have right-wing webmaster Matt Drudge blaming the teenagers themselves as “16- and 17-year-old beasts.’’

This scandal is what has registered on the political Richter scale. This is what voters are asking their representatives about. Well, I wouldn’t have chosen to play on this field, but I will take it.

Rest of the article here.
Terrorism’s Tower of Babel

October 4, 2006

In his recent post, Joe asks the pertinent question why Democrats are scared to stand up to Bush on any issue related to national security. Even when the so called measures to "protect" Americans smack of extra constitutional illegalities. Are they just being cautious, not wanting to rock the boat so close to an upcoming election for fear of being labeled "soft" by voters? Or do they like many Americans, believe in their own hearts that they indeed are the "spineless" party as Bush often derisively claims? In that case they must also believe that their own safety is better entrusted to Bush, a man who pretends to be the "calcium" in the nation’s spine when it comes to defeating "evil." Joe refers to an article by University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein about Mortality Salience and Politics. It has been observed that people become more rigid in their moral and political outlook when reminded of their own mortality. They then tend to make choices which favor a "strong" political leadership that is more likely to implement harsh measures of law and order. Terrorism and 9/11 are two such reminders of mortality and Bush has assiduously (and deceitfully) milked them to the last drop in order to scare Americans into voting for his dangerous agenda. Through lies, fear mongering and utter deceipt, Bush, Rove and their media lackeys have managed to falsely convince many Americans that Bush can and wants to protect them from terrorists at home and abroad.

It is true that we are more likely to stray from the direction set by our usual moral compass when we are scared. But how far is too far? In a comprehensive round up of the current state of dispiriting affairs, Brian Leiter of Leiter Reports enumerates the various ways in which the Bush administration has chipped away at our long held national values by waving the scepter of terrorism before us. American citizens and the US Congress have gone along willingly down the slippery slope of disappearing civil liberties in the name of national security and the Democratic opposition has toed Bush’s autoritarian line without as much as a whimper. Was their cravenness a case of Mortality Salience or political expediencey? It doesn’t matter. The end result is just as corrosive. And all this, despite the glaring evidence pointing to Bush’s dismal failure to effectively fight terrorism and the string of lies that are behind the presidential narrative. So where will this corrupt and craven behavior lead to? Professor Leiter quotes a colleague who describes the current mindset as the "Stalinist Creep-Up" which is characterised by the following changes in the national political climate:

"It’s the return of ‘troikas’ — detentions without court warrants, interrogations without assistance of counsel, trials by puppet courts, all the while the currently unincarcerated crowd believes that this could only happen to criminals."

Are we there yet – in the clutches of the inevitable Stalinist creep-ups? I think so. The creep-ups come dressed not necessarily as earth shaking events. More telling of this national malady are the little things which make us jumpy and vengeful. Since 9/11 there have been numerous reports documenting the unfair profiling, incarceration and harrassment of "terrorism suspects" based on "suspicious" religious affiliations, looks and clothing. The targets of such capricious search and seizure have overwhelmingly been young Muslim males of Arab or Asian origin. But sometimes even those who just happen to "look" like them but otherwise don’t fit the profile have not been immune. That would include non-Muslim Asian and Latino men and in particular Sikhs, whose turbans and facial hair evoke the images of the still elusive Osama. Now it seems that just speaking a foreign language unfamiliar to TSA agents at airports is enough to trip the "terrorist" alarm.

Man questioned and misses flight for speaking Tamil

"A 32-year-old man speaking Tamil and some English about a sporting rivalry was questioned at Sea-Tac Airport and missed his flight Saturday because at least one person thought he was suspicious.

The Port of Seattle dispatched its police officers to investigate the case, which occurred Saturday around noon, said Bob Parker, airport spokesman. The Chicago man was preparing to board an American Airlines flight to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The man was speaking Tamil, a language largely used in India, Sri Lanka and Singapore, on his cell phone at the departure gate and on the aircraft. An off-duty airline employee heard the conversation and informed the flight crew.

The man also apparently said something in English about a sporting rivalry at his alma mater.

"It’s a big misunderstanding," said Parker. "He had a perfectly innocent explanation that all added up." Parker said it is incumbent on airport officials to investigate reports of suspicious activity. "It’s hard to triage over the phone," he said.

But Parker had no explanation as to why a man speaking Tamil, which is spoken worldwide, would be considered suspicious. The person who contacted airport officials could give an answer to that question, he added.

Parker said the man was cooperative and boarded a later flight to Texas. He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his cell phone at an airport in the future."

"Would not speak in a foreign language at an airport in the future?" Why? Where does it say he can’t? I speak a few "suspicious" languages myself. Should I feel "creeped out" by this scary "creep-up?" Sure. And so should you, even if you speak nothing but King George’s Americanese.
I agree with President Bush (Joe)

October 3, 2006

The President is busy thumbing his nose at Democrats (CNN). (One might also be tempted, as I was and did earlier, to use stronger language to describe his reaction).

President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is arguing the
Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn’t be
trusted to hold the reins of Congress.

"If you listen closely to
some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like — it
sounds like — they think the best way to protect the American people
is, wait until we’re attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000
fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller’s
congressional campaign.

Gee, who could have seen this coming? Senate Democrats give the Chimperor authorization to finally be King George in passing the Torture Act complete with his I’m-POTUS-and-final-interpreter-of-everything-and-I-AM-the-judicial-review provisions in order to present themselves as TOUGH ON TERROR (refusing to so much as put up a fight when it was well within their power to prevent this!), and Bush responds by painting them as soft on terror.

Oh. I guess Jack Balkin saw it coming:

So let me get this straight: The Democrats give
up the chance at filibustering one of the worst bills in recent memory
because they were afraid that the President would paint them as soft on
terrorism.

After the bill passes, the President plans to paint them as soft on terrorism.

What a spineless, worthless lot the Democrats in the Senate are. They deserve every lost Senate and House seat that comes from this.

Jack Balkin and every other person of at least moderate intelligence, that is. Which would seem to preclude the Senate Democrats.

George Bush is wrong, of course, to claim that the Democratic plan of action is to get struck by a terrorist attack — hell, he’s wrong even to claim that he’s ever listened closely to anything. But the thing is, I still agree with him. I agree with his (verbal equivalent of a) rude hand gesture to the Democrats, and I agree with his desire to see each and every Democrat voted out of office. This may well be the worst thing Congress has ever done. For the Democrats not to stop it, even as the minority party, is simply inexcusable.

But do you want to hear something truly horrifying? The Republicans are even WORSE.
No Two Snowflakes Are Alike…

October 3, 2006

Now millions of them will be – after the US postal system is done printing this year’s holiday stamps.

Every year in October – November, I look forward to the issue of Christmas stamps. I am partial to the secular edition. I love the colorful images of everyday, cheerful objects. This year the Christmas stamps promise to be particularly pretty – depicting a natural object which is as gorgeous in real life as any artist’s rendition of it. The 2006 Christmas commemorative stamps will feature snowflakes.

"Through rain and sleet and dead of night and all that, your letters next winter can be delivered bearing snowflakes artfully photographed by a physicist who weathers those same storms to study nature’s crystal magic.

Starting in October, the U.S. Postal Service will issue a set of four stamps featuring pictures of snowflakes taken by Kenneth Libbrecht, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology.

For years, Libbrecht has been studying the physics of snowflakes, looking at the different patterns of crystal growth and snowflake formation.

"I’m trying to understand the dynamics of how crystals grow, all the way down to the molecular level," Libbrecht said. "This is a very complicated problem, and I’ve been looking at ice as a particularly interesting case study."

Snowflakes are nothing more than ice, but the forms a single flake can take are dizzyingly complex. A single crystal of ice is known as a snow crystal. And one or more snow crystals stuck together make a snowflake.

There is, as you’ve heard, endless possibilities for how they stick together.

More about Libbrecht’s work with snowflakes here.

photo of an actual snow flake from Kenneth Libbrecht’s laboratory

USPS issue of 2006 commemorative stamps
Water, Water, Everywhere; Not A Drop…..

October 3, 2006

Growing up in New Delhi, I remember that electricity and water were dependable commodities in the early part of my childhood. Around age ten, after my parents had moved to a house in a newer part of Delhi, trouble with water and electricity (mostly water) first made itself felt in our lives. Uninterrupted and dependable supply of water was no longer a given. Gradually, things became so bad that water rationing and planning our lives around when "water would flow from the faucets," became a daily routine. Early in the morning, adults of the household would become busy for an hour or so, filling up various receptacles with water for the entire day’s use. The containers were designated with varying degrees of purity and cleanliness. Drinking water was stored in clean, covered containers in or near the kitchen. Water for non drinking purposes was stored in drums, buckets and assorted vessels kept near bathrooms, in the courtyard etc. Everyone needed to finish with shower and bathroom activities by 9am. We had to work fast and with consideration for the next bather because by 9:30am the water turned into a trickle and by 10, it was gone – only to show up reluctantly, around 5pm when another round of frantic flurry of "fill the pots" would begin. We grudgingly learnt to live with water paucity which was especially hard and annoying during the relentlessly scorching summer months. The problem was universal – it did not matter whether one lived in a rich or a poor neighborhood. It did not escape our notice however that parts of New Delhi where members of the Indian Parliament (equivalent of the members of our Congress) and highly placed government officials lived, did not experience difficulty with their water supply!

Things only got worse in the ensuing years. Citizens waited patiently for a couple of decades for the government to turn things around. When nothing improved, they took matters in their own hands. Most homes and apartment owners and builders have taken to digging deep underground wells in their backyards to draw water into rooftop storage tanks. It is now common practice in most big and mid-sized cities. That ensures a continuous supply of water. However, the do-it -yourself approach to solving problems of public utilities comes at a high cost. Pumping underground water for daily use, as also the frequent use of diesel generators to produce electricity during wide spread power cuts at all hours of the day and night have contributed to air pollution and alarming depletion of the ground water table, which do not bode well for India’s environmental integrity. To make matters worse, the quality of the water that the government does manage to pipe into homes and businesses, leaves much to be desired in terms of its safety and potability. Suspicions of raw sewage mingling with the drinking water supply has plagued the Delhi municipality for years. Most people use commercial filters and many boil their drinking water. Ground water too is no longer deemed safe due to increased levels of contaminants such as mercury and arsenic. The water situation in India is indeed dire.

Recently The New York Times ran an article about uncontrolled and devastating floods in India. The article points to the irony of a country caught between two untenable scenarios due to poor planning and a government indifferent to the basic needs of citizens. One, the dire lack of clean water for human consumption and the other, an overabundance of water in the form of rain and flood which first destroys and then goes to waste. It makes eminent (and imminent) sense to harvest some of the wasted water for human use and preserve and replenisht the rapidly sinking natural ground water table.

Sanjay Garg, a reader and fellow blogger who is knowledgeable about issues relating to economic and other developments around the world (especially India) sent me a fact filled article enumerating the steps India could take (and is taking) to correct its long festering water woes. (Thanks, Sanjay.) But as with everything else in India, I will wait to see how many of these sensible solutions are actually put into practice without corruption, scandal or gross mismanagement. I don’t want to sound a pessimistic note and I hope that all the steps that Sanjay has listed are indeed put into practice efficiently and without delay. After all, if Israeli scientists could make the desert bloom, India should be able to harvest, channel and deliver clean water to all its citizens.

Note: This is a rather long post and may not be of particular interest to some of the readers. But it happens to be a topic that I deeply care about. That is why I invited Sanjay who has many facts and data at his fingertips, to contribute to this article. I have attached a painting of mine here which I had previously published in another post. The seemingly peaceful picture of the two women walking gracefully through an arid field, actually represents a brutal reality of rural India. Women walk miles, twice a day, just to draw water for daily use. It is a backbreaking task, more so because rural women are all "working" women who toil at home and in the fields all day.

Sanjay says the following:

"India is actually blessed by nature with bountiful water – it is amongst the ‘wettest’ countries in the world, yet ‘desert-like’ conditions are now prevalent in many parts of the country. Even states like Kerala with 44 rivers, copious lakes, and 3000 mm rainfall, faces an acute water crisis in the near future. Overall in India, 50% of the people do not have free access to safe drinking water. I have my own analysis of the root causes for this state of affairs but this perhaps is not the place to delve into it.

The largest single use of fresh water in India is for irrigation purposes – 80% of all fresh water drawn. The other 20% is for personal & industrial use. Rainfall being unpredictable & piped municipal water supply deemed expensive, people keep drawing on Ground water to meet their fresh water needs. To the extent that almost 2/3rd of the total fresh water used is drawn from the water table. Ground water thus plays a significant role in sustaining both the general development and economic growth of the country.

Increasing pace of ground water depletion in order to meet the growing demands of water in agriculture, industrial and domestic sectors, has brought problems of over-exploitation, declining water levels, seawater ingress in coastal areas and ground water pollution in different parts of the country. The falling ground water levels in various parts of the country threatens the sustainability of ground water resource, as water levels have gone deep beyond the economic lifts of pumping. The speedy and uncontrolled depletion of ground water resources has resulted into increase in over-exploited and critical dark blocks.

Over the past decade, there has been increasing realization of the depleting ground water problem. Natural recharge of ground water being a very slow process, efforts are underway to supplement it with "artificial" recharge i.e. via rainwater harvesting. A number of programs have been initiated for water conservation and rain water harvesting through central & state govt. agencies. There are states where rain water is harvested in every house like Mizoram in northeast India. In Rajasthan and Gujarat, which are drought prone states, people are increasingly realizing the importance of rain water harvesting. As a result of this awareness, these states have been able to achieve significant improvement in the availability of water for drinking and other purposes. Voluntary organizations and individuals have also contributed significantly in promoting rain water harvesting.

Last week, The Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) issued directives to the state governments to take up all measures to adopt artificial recharge to ground water and promote rain water harvesting in all the over-exploited and critical areas. The directive also is aimed at ensuring inclusion of roof top rain water harvesting in the building bye-laws. Further, the CGWA has also issued directions to housing societies, institutions, hotels, industries, farm houses, etc., in the notified areas where ground water table is below 8 meters from ground surface to adopt rain water harvesting system.

Private industry is also getting involved in rainwater harvesting. Coca Cola (India), with technical guidance from the state of Uttar Pradesh (where Ground water is depleting at 51 cms annually) has initiated a rain water harvesting project. Coca Cola had already commissioned 5 rain water harvesting projects, with the capacity to recharge 3000 cubic metres annually. The company will set up another such project at the environment ministry premises next week.

In addition to rainwater harvesting, efforts are on for water purification, water de-toxification, water desalination through nano membranes and nano sensor for detecting contaminants and pathogens. Scientists from Banaras Hindu University have devised a simple method to produce carbon nanotube filters that efficiently remove micro-to nano-scale contaminants from water. India is endowed with a long coastline with many densely populated urban areas along the coastline and desalination is a distinct possibility if cost & technology-feasible. It may be possible to provide desalinated seawater for drinking purposes to these coastal cities and towns, utiling nuclear-powered desalination plants on floating barges at a reasonable cost. A pilot desalination project is currently operating in the southern coastal area of Tamil Nadu.

On the scale of "hard-to-do" fresh water projects, the toughest and farthest reaching is the river-linking proposal. It is based on the idea of transfering water from excess supply to deficit areas. As an example, for two months of a typical year, the Brahmaputra River carries more water by volume than all the rest of Indian rivers combined. If even 10% of this flow could be diverted away from the Brahmaputra, it will not only meet the fresh water needs of the rest of India but reduce floods in the east."
Artful Ignorance

October 2, 2006

Overzealous parents, concerned about the corruption of their young children, often do not distinguish between art, literature and sleaze. Libraries therefore have to contend with repeated attempts at banning books. Targets include perennial favorites such as The Catcher In The Rye and sometimes even Shakespeare and Harry Potter. For some particularly nervous prudes, legitimate and even very good art can offend sensibilities. There is no difference in their eyes between the depiction of nudity in a classical statue and salacious and suggestive nakedness.

One school district in Texas is currently in the midst of a controversy relating to nudity in art. A fifth grade art teacher, who took her class out to a museum (at the behest of the school principal) is facing the wrath of parents and the school board. Her mistake? While on the tour, some of the children happened to see some nude statues displayed at the museum. The parents of one child complained to the school and the school took umbrage at the "carelessness" of the teacher. The teacher has refused to accept blame for any wrongdoing. The school board is threatening to suspend her.

Following is a fitting admonishment directed at the school board for its lack of maturity, from the Houston Chronicle:

Naked fear

Frisco school board needs to defend, not suspend, teacher in art uproar

In the sort of commotion that distorts discussion about moral values, a Frisco art teacher has been pulled from teaching after a parent complained one of the teacher’s students glimpsed nudity.

In a statue. At an art museum.

Both the parent’s objection and Frisco Independent School District’s panicked response expose little more than naked fear. But while a parent has the right to act on worries for an individual child, it’s a school board’s job to fight any intimidation that threatens other children’s learning.

The Frisco school board needs to regain its vision and defend Sydney McGee.

Last April, McGee, an award-winning art teacher, took her principal’s advice and took her class to the Dallas Museum of Art. Such field trips give test-weary public school children a glimpse of the adult world at its imaginative best.

During the tour, however, one student spied a statue of a naked body and several other works with nudity in them. The child’s parent called McGee’s principal, who first reproved the teacher, then assigned her to a "growth program" — code for performance improvement regimen.

This month, after resisting that program, McGee was denied transfer to a different school and told she would be fired. After a closed-door school board meeting, she was suspended instead. While not teaching, she will receive her $55,000 salary until her contract expires this spring.

Maybe the concerned parent is an odd, latter-day Victorian. That’s what permission slips are for. It’s hard to imagine a 21st century American unaware of what lies behind the doors of art museums, or that Western art includes a nude or two. More likely the parent was afraid: overwhelmed by the amoral sexuality, violence and predatory treatment of women that assault their children each hour on television.

The antidote to that fear is just what McGee was offering: guidance from a trained adult who explains the value of the images an acclaimed art museum offers. Parents who don’t agree with mainstream values can remove their children from the mainstream.

Frisco ISD, however, shouldn’t have a choice. Its role is to prepare students for their world — a world far richer than the scribbles on a TAKS test. The school board should fiercely defend teachers who perform this job.

After the statue scandal broke, Frisco’s school board stated that it suspended McGee’s due to pre-existing performance problems — not a bullying parent or a naked statue. So far, though, the board has produced scant evidence. If the board members can’t offer some proof quickly, they should prove their courage as educators instead by returning McGee to her classroom."

If they wish, parents can always keep their children away from museums and libraries so that they will not stumble upon and be corrupted by this, this or this . Fine with me. But can they also perpetually shield kids from TV news and newspapers so that they don’t accidentally come across this, this or this?

As a parent and teacher, I am fully cognizant of the fact that not all art or literature is appropriate for all ages. That is the judgement we adults make for the benefit of the younger generation. Even then children are occasionally exposed to age inappropriate material – more often than not, OUTSIDE libraries and museums. Instead of going into a tizzy, the job of parents, teachers and other adults is to provide them with a suitable explanation and proper context of their experience. I also realize that not all adults are capable of a mature reaction in an unexpected situation. I was therefore not very surprised that the parents of one child found the museum experience alarming. But an entire school board consisting presumably of educated adults? It is quite pathetic that they chose to act with misplaced puritanism rather than side with the teacher and reason with the parents.

Note: For me personally, what is being described here , qualifies as obscene.
Clothing wouldn’t lie, would it? (Joe)

October 2, 2006

And besides, the shirt can’t be any more dishonest than the Administration which now gets to make non-reviewable decisions about who it wants to declare enemy combatants so it can torture them, strip them of their habeas rights, and detain until "terror" has been everywhere defeated.

Order your t-shirt here.
(ht to Auguste)
Armstrong With An “A”

September 30, 2006

So, it seems that Neil Armstrong did use correct grammar when he uttered one of the most famous phrases in human history. For decades since Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon, we have heard the exuberant message Armstrong sent out to us earthlings worded as: "…One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

For nearly four decades, Armstrong’s words have qualified as one giant grammatical misspeak heard around the world. The correct version should have been: "…One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." It was assumed that Armstrong forgot the "a" in his excitement and his historical statement is often quoted with a parenthetical "a".

But Armstrong has insisted that he probably had transmitted the correct grammatical phrase to NASA’s Mission Control and that the "a" just got lost in transmission. Recent high tech audio analysis of the message from the moon vindicates Armstrong’s claim that he did indeed utter the all important "a."

(The photo shows Buzz Aldrin photographed on the moon by Neil Armstrong)

One small step for clarity
Researcher discovers that Neil Armstrong had not only the RIGHT IDEA, but the RIGHT WORDS

"High-tech detective work apparently has found the missing "a" in one of the most famous phrases ever spoken.

Astronaut Neil Armstrong’s first words from the surface of the moon on July 20, 1969, now can be confidently recast, according to the research, as "That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." It is the more dramatic and grammatically correct phrasing that Armstrong, 76, has often said was the version he transmitted to NASA’s Mission Control for broadcast to worldwide television.

With the technology of the 1960s, however, his global audience heard his comment without the "a," making it "That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The discrepancy has been widely debated for years by historians, academics and fans of space travel, with the "a" sometimes appearing in parentheses in government documents and Armstrong being listed on unofficial Web sites as being guilty of a momentous flub.

The missing word was found this month in a software analysis of Armstrong’s famous phrase by Peter Shann Ford, a Sydney, Australia-based computer programmer. Ford’s company, Control Bionics, specializes in helping physically handicapped people use their nerve impulses to communicate through computers.

"I have reviewed the data and Peter Ford’s analysis of it, and I find the technology interesting and useful," Armstrong said in a statement. "I also find his conclusion persuasive. Persuasive is the appropriate word."

According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, "One small step for a man … " in a total of 35 milliseconds, 10 times too fast for the "a" to be audible. The "a" was transmitted, though, and can be verified in an analysis using Canadian sound-editing software called GoldWave, Ford said.

Theories abound

Critics have suggested that Armstrong either botched a missive written for him by a government official ahead of his lunar step or that the poor wording was a sign of his lack of awareness of its significance.

However, Armstrong told biographer Hansen that he composed the phrase during the six hours and 40 minutes between his drama-tinged landing and the time he and Apollo 11 crewmate Buzz Aldrin emerged from their lander, Eagle, to walk on the moon. In the 2005 book First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, Armstrong told Hansen that others have pointed out that he can often be heard dropping the vowels from his speech in his radio transmissions.

"It doesn’t sound like there was time for the word to be there," Armstrong said in the book. "On the other hand, I didn’t intentionally make an inane statement, and … certainly the ‘a’ was intended, because that’s the only way the statement makes any sense.

"So I would hope that history would grant me leeway for dropping the syllable and understand that it was certainly intended, even if it wasn’t said — although it might actually have been."

Recent posts

about

Naked fear

Frisco school board needs to defend, not suspend, teacher in art uproar

Theories abound